Some incompetent pretended to make a "new" coin without changing the "magic bytes" that differentiate chains?

That was, like one of the very first things learned about cloning bitcoin, where did whoever made this thing even get the diff they used to find all the places where one coin differs from another?

They compared a chain that also had not done it right against the chain that failcoin was cloned from, maybe?

Or just hadn't even heard of diff, maybe?

-MarkM-

So many questions, and all rhetorical.. I hope you're not disappointed that SmallChange never was intended as a real coin. You might want to check out the readme (github link), where I explained why I published the coin here at all

Code:

[..]So actually, this 'new' coin exists for the following reasons: [..]

Still if you are trying to make a new coin that is not litecoin, and litecoin supposedly derives in some way from bitcoin, the first thing you'd need to do is a diff of litecoin vs bitcoin to find out what things are different, that is, what makes them two distinct coins rather than one being a notwork-forking fork of the other's blockchain and network.

The name, the ports, the IRC channel, the address coding system that make the addresses start with different letters (assuming you even agree it is good to prevent users from being able to use one address for all coins, which is arguable), the magic bytes that make them distinct p2p networks and so on. Then change all such things, presto another distinct coin. RIght now you are basically just a hard fork of the litecoin network, forking from a point just prior to the genesis block (assuming you actually did change the genesis block?)

If I understood correctly, you already hard-forked SMC? If yes, LOL, you shouldn't do it like that! You need to set some future block height an give miners enough time toupgrade to newest version of the wallet. Unless 51% hashpower is using that newest version of the wallet things will go wrong and many will be really pissed once they findout they've been mining on abandoned blockchain for days or weeks. Terracoin had 3 hard-forks in very short period of time and network is still in complete chaos due tomany miners or mere users of TRC never upgrading, upgrading once or twice but not three times.

For some updates (e.g. difficulty adjustment algorithm) that would be the proper way. Here the problem is that a few thousand peers of foreign nodes need to get out as fast as possible -- so I opted for this radical update-path.

Hard-fork itself is the ultimate issue, not "few thousand peers of foreign nodes need to get out as fast as possible" or "difficulty adjustment algorithm" or anything else.

The several thousand *incompatible* peer addresses causes sever problems to connect to legitimate network nodes, ultimately causing network fragmentation. I thought of several, but the fastest/simplest and imo most appropriate and even most interesting solution for this (spare time) research coin is the one I carried out.

Quote

SMC mining aborted. I ain't gonna support coin developed by retard who is hard-forking blockchain on will.

I'd somewhat understand that reaction if you attached any monetary value to SMC. I thought I made that point clear, but speaking of retards: SMC is research and its only value is its blockchain, freely available to any participant. If you want to learn how those coins and tools around them work, you can play around with SMC (I already expressed interest in trying out any reasonable modification suggestions) or use your own fork (full source control) or do the real thing with established coins (invest hashing power, but have little/no influence on the coin itself).

I honestly don't understand these extreme reactions, up to using words such as "retard" which is inapropriate to say the least.It would be understandable if the SMC project was claiming to be the ultimate alt-coin. But it was the opposite, from the very beginning the dev made it clear that it was meant to be research, that he and whoever willing to play with sources would experiment the implementation side, and that anybody willing to mine it would also be part of an experimental thing.

I don't care if something is hard-forked, because thanks to this I learned what "hard-fork" means.I don't care if thousands of new nodes messed up with the p2p network, because thanks to this I learned about the magic bytes hand-shake stuff.Most important, I don't care if people are leaving the boat complaining, because they leave with such stupid complains, they are not bringing anything useful for me to learn on this thread.

There are so many alt-coins launched every days, if not hours, that are just shitty scams. These are the ones which must be denigrated. SMC from the very beginning took the opposite direction and tried to do something useful.

Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".

lightenup, you might consider flagging the need to update in the thread title, if that can still be edited. It's easy to miss, and not everyone running SMC will necessarily even click on the topic.

Good idea, done.

Quote from: binaryFate

I updated to latest git version. Can we found out which of the "new" or "old" block chain we're mining when we find blocks?

If the older version overwrites the newer, REORGANIZE messages with high disconnected blocks should appear in your debug.log. Another indicator is that you lose mined coins. If the newer version overwrites the older, then everything stays 'normal'.Each time someone from the old version updates and joins the new version, he or she resynchronizes the two block chains. If the older has been faster, the newer is overwritten (from the split/fork point). -> At most the mining efforts starting from the update are lost.Currently, the network hashing power of the newer version is rather large (about 6 MHashes/sec), we are at block height 100 941.

Hmm.. that should not have happened; strange. Any more (earlier) messages in the debug.log? At least on Linux with the command line node software I had no problems. Even the peer database was gracefully reinitiated because of the changed network magic.

Not to devalue your work and efforts in any way, but I don't think that an exchange or a whole forum is currently needed for SMC, but SMC is in desperate need of novel ideas and implementing them -> of course, if it is (still) fun for you to make those things, do them by all means.